A
GRAM PANCHAYAT VILLAGE SUFIPIND
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB THROUGH SECRETARY AND ORS.
FEBRUARY 1, 1996
B
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
Punjab Village Common Land (Regulation) Act, 1961 :
Sections 4(2). 42-Abadi land situated in a particular plol-Consolida-
C tion proceedings completed in 1959-Jn 1979 application was made for
realignment of the plot so as not to cause disturbance of respondent's
enjoyment of his plot-Condoning the delay the autho1ity passed the order for
realignment without notice to the Gram Panchayat which claimed that the
land in question stood vested in it as a pathway-On appeal held, in view of
the fact that the respondellt claims access to his prope1ty and realignment
D . thereof, the realignment order passed earlier is set aside and the matter
remanded to the Consolidation Officer-After notice to pa1ties and personal
inspection of the place, he should detem1ine the alignment in their presence
according to law, within two nzonths.
E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1808 of
1975.
F
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.5.75 of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court in C.W.P.No. 1887 of 1975.
Pawan Kumar Bahl and P. Narasimhan for the appellant.
Y.P. Dhingra and M.K. Garg for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
This appeal by special leave arises against the order dated 21st May,
G 1975 of the High Court dismissing Writ Petition No. 1887n5 as usual in
limine. The controversy is whether abadi plot No.71 is a pathway which
stands vested in the Gram Panchayat, Sufipind or whether it passes through
the passage to the respondent. Admittedly, the consolidation proceedill'gs
were completed in 1959. An application came to be made in 1974 after
H long lapse of time for realignment of the plot so as not to cause disturbance
1150
,
GRAM PANCHAYATVILL.SUFIPINDv. STATE
1151
of his enjoyment of Plot No.71. The Gram Panchayat claimed that it is a A
pathway and under the Punjab Village Common Land [Regulation] Act,
1961 and later it stands vested in the Gram Panchayat by operation of
Section 4 [2] of that Act. Admittedly, notice was not issued to the Gram
Panchayat. The authority had exercised the revisional jurisdiction under
Section 42 of the Consolidation Act and condoned the delay and passed B
the order for realignment. In view of the fact that the respondent is
claiming access to his property and realignment thereof, the appropriate
course would be to set- aside the order and to remand the matter to the
Consolidation Officer. The Consolidation Officer is directed to issue prior
notice to the appellant as well as to the respondent. He should make a
personal inspection to the place and then determine the alignment in their
presence according to law. That would not only avoid needless wastage of
time but the rights of the parties would also be settled in the presence of
the parties by looking into the factual position as well as actual need in
that behalf.
c
Under these circumstances, the appeal is allowed. The Consolidation D
Officer is directed to do the exercise within a period of two months from
the date of the receipt of this order. No costs.
G.N.
Appeal allowed.
Lex